An extension of the Common Sense Journalism monthly column by Doug Fisher, former broadcaster, newspaper reporter and wire service editor. From new media to old, much of journalism is just plain common sense."In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." - Unknown (often improperly attributed to Thomas Jefferson)
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." - Upton Sinclair
"Common sense is not so common" - Voltaire
"Common sense is instinct; enough of it is genius" - George Bernard Shaw

She certainly can comment if she wants to, unless there is a clear policy, law, etc., that prevents her.

And
maybe there is. But too often stories say an official said he or she
"cannot" comment. Often, a stock phrase that like "because the lawsuit
is ongoing" is thrown in - phrases that when you parse them really don't
say much.

And that subtly makes us complicit in one of
the favorite parlor games of many politicians and too many public
officials: linguistic obfuscation.

She would not comment. It's a conscious decision. We should make clear to readers/users that's the case.

If an official says he or she can't comment, then the conversation should be like this:

Them: I'm sorry, I can't comment on that.

You: Why is that?

Them: It's an ongoing legal case.

You: Yes, but why can't you comment? Is there a policy or is this your decision.

Them: I just don't comment on ongoing cases.

You: OK, then you would not comment. I understand.

If, OTOH, there's this:

You: Yes, but why can't you comment? Is there a policy or is this your decision?

Them: Yes, we have a policy against commenting in such cases.

You: Oh, is that a written policy? Where can I get a copy of it?

Them: Uh ....

Then
I'd probably still say the person would not comment and cited a (fill in
your governing body) policy against talking about ongoing legal cases.
(And you should continue pressing for that policy, just because ...)

If
the person were able to produce details of that policy or say it was on
the advice of a lawyer, etc., then "can't" is closer to acceptable. But
you now know details of why and should tell folks.

And even then, I think I'd favor "would not" with the explanation.

The
only times I think "cannot" is clearly called for is when there are
legal repercussions if the person talks. So if the mayor says she can't
comment because of a judge's gag order or she can't comment because
state law says officials can't talk about such and such, then OK.

In most cases, whether to comment is a decision made with free will,
which takes "would." Even with a "policy," a person usually is free to
decide to ignore it. (All the time we use anonymous sources who are doing
just that, don't we? So that little nicety doesn't seem to trouble us.)

"Can't"
seldom should be used, and when it is it should always have solid
explanation, not just a tossed-off stock phrase, because the subtle but
important implication is that the decision is being taken out of the
person's hands. If we acquiesce, it provides a veil of plausible
deniability. It's a reason pols and public officials like to use it,
just as they adore the passive ("mistakes were made").

Our job isn't to provide linguistic cover.

(Usage notes:

-
The widely established form is "declined to", not just "declined,"
comment. You decline something offered to you (another piece of pie,
perhaps), but you decline to offer something (in this case, a comment)
to someone else. The argument could be that you are declining the chance
to comment, shortened to declined comment, but that's really not the
sense of the interaction. And why even use that bureaucratic form when
"would not" is perfectly fine?

- Avoid "refused" - the
connotation has overtones of malice on your part. But if you catch his
or her honor carting away a bag of money and you ask what's up and all
you get is stony silence, then, yeah, "refused" might fit the bill.)

2 Comments:

I have also observed that most stories will use the phrase “cannot comment” without providing legal reasons to justify their statements. I agree with your claim that readers should be made aware of the difference between “won’t comment” and “can’t comment.” However, perhaps one reason that most writers will use the phrase “can’t comment” is because today’s readers feel that “won’t comment” has the same negative connotations as “refused to comment.” Or maybe writers just do not portray interviewee’s statement accurately because they are trying to appease their audiences. Either way, reader’s should strive to look for these differences and discover the truth in stories on their own.

About Me

Yes, I do coaching and consulting. That is the only shameless commerce you'll get from me here. Go to the bottom of the blog for more details.
Who am I: A longtime print and broadcast reporter/editor/producer and then AP news editor who now professes journalism at the University of South Carolina. (But please note, nothing on this blog represents official university policy or sentiment. If it did, I'd be very concerned.)My point: That journalism is a great occupation, that most journalism is common sense and that our problems arise when we sometimes don't use it.What's covered: My interests center on editing and writing and on editors and the challenges they face in a changing environment. I'm convinced editors are not being trained enough to face these challenges, but that common sense rules the day. I'm heavily involved in Newsplex, the new-media newsroom at the University of South Carolina. But my interests are wide-ranging, so anything, from ethics to some aspects of Web design, is fair game.
Hope you find something here worthwhile.

Common Sense Journalism &nbspYes, I do seminars and consulting. Among those I have worked with are the SNPA Traveling Campus, S.C. Press Association, N.Y. Press Association, Georgia Press Association, Mississippi Press Association, Virginia Press Association, Landmark Community Newspapers, American Copy Editors Society, Society of Professional Journalists, Lancaster (S.C.) News, The (Rock Hill, S.C.) Herald, The (Sumter, S.C.) Item, the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration. Contact me for more information.